Agent Meltdowns: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Helpful Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19149v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 22:03:38 GMT
• Title: Agent Meltdowns: The Road to Hell Is Paved with Helpful Agents
• Abstract summary: We introduce, characterize, and measure a new type of agent failure we call emphaccidental meltdown<n>Because meltdowns are not captured by the existing reliability or safety benchmarks, we develop a taxonomy of meltdown behaviors.<n>We then implement an agent-agnostic infrastructure for injecting simulated local and remote errors into the rollout environment.
• Score: 7.806845513717345
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Agents operating with computer and Web use inevitably encounter errors: inaccessible webpages, missing files, local and remote misconfigurations, etc. These errors do not thwart agents based on state-of-the-art models. They helpfully continue to look for ways to complete their tasks. We introduce, characterize, and measure a new type of agent failure we call \emph{accidental meltdown}: unsafe or harmful behavior in response to a benign environmental error, in the absence of any adversarial inputs. Because meltdowns are not captured by the existing reliability or safety benchmarks, we develop a taxonomy of meltdown behaviors. We then implement an agent-agnostic infrastructure for injecting simulated local and remote errors into the rollout environment and use it to systematically evaluate agent systems powered by GPT, Grok, and Gemini. Our evaluation demonstrates that meltdowns (e.g., conducting unauthorized reconnaissance or subverting access control) of varying severity and success occur in 64.7\% of agent rollouts that encounter simulated errors, spanning all combinations of agent system, backing model, and error type. In over half of these meltdowns, unsafe behaviors are not reported to the user. Comparing behaviors of the same agents with and without errors, we find that exploration in response to errors is correlated with unsafe and harmful behavior.

Related papers

• ClayBuddy: A Framework, Evaluation, & Mitigation of Coding Agent Failures [1.0742675209112622]
  We study failure modes as stemming from three mechanisms: underspecification, capability errors, and agent harness errors.<n>We propose ClayBuddy, a harness that molds to user preferences and can be modified by the model in-session to mitigate these errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T18:29:53Z)
• ROGUE: Misaligned Agent Behavior Arising from Ordinary Computer Use [40.024131729499494]
  We show that agents can exhibit misaligned behavior even in benign settings, taking unsafe actions when those actions are instrumental to task completion.<n>We study this failure mode through the lens of corrigibility, the safety desideratum that agents remain amenable to human correction, interruption, or shutdown.<n>Our work highlights the critical need for principled, corrigibility-focused alignment methods in autonomous agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T20:29:35Z)
• AgentHijack: Benchmarking Computer Use Agent Robustness to Common Environment Corruptions [78.49000936275773]
  We introduce AgentHijack, a benchmark designed to evaluate the robustness of computer-use agents under common corruptions.<n>We evaluate a variety of desktop tasks that utilize MLLM-based agents and discover that even minor instances of corruption can result in substantial performance degradation.<n>We propose AgentHijack-Agent, a framework that integrates an action generator with enhanced grounding capabilities and an onlooker responsible for behavior summarization and environment checking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T11:09:22Z)
• VerifyMAS: Hypothesis Verification for Failure Attribution in LLM Multi-Agent Systems [79.51005192758262]
  Large language model-driven multi-agent systems excel at complex tasks.<n>However, unreliable agents remain a key bottleneck to system-level reliability.<n>We propose a hypothesis verification framework for agent failure attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T14:09:35Z)
• AgentHazard: A Benchmark for Evaluating Harmful Behavior in Computer-Use Agents [31.649268608215817]
  We present textbfAgentHazard, a benchmark for evaluating harmful behavior in computer-use agents.<n>We evaluate Claude Code, OpenClaw, and IFlow using mostly open or openly deployable models from the Qwen3, Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T10:29:31Z)
• Willful Disobedience: Automatically Detecting Failures in Agentic Traces [2.2365938060262356]
  AgentPex is an AI-powered tool designed to systematically evaluate agentic traces.<n>It extracts behavioral rules from agent prompts and system instructions, then uses these specifications to automatically evaluate traces for compliance.<n>We evaluate AgentPex on 424 traces from 2-bench across models in telecom, retail, and airline customer service.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T00:33:39Z)
• Where LLM Agents Fail and How They can Learn From Failures [62.196870049524364]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise in solving complex, multi-step tasks.<n>They amplify vulnerability to cascading failures, where a single root-cause error propagates through subsequent decisions.<n>Current systems lack a framework that can comprehensively understand agent error in a modular and systemic way.<n>We introduce the AgentErrorTaxonomy, a modular classification of failure modes spanning memory, reflection, planning, action, and system-level operations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T18:20:27Z)
• Uncovering Systemic and Environment Errors in Autonomous Systems Using Differential Testing [9.625308787676286]
  We introduce AIProbe, a novel black-box testing technique that applies differential testing to attribute undesirable agent behaviors.<n>AIProbe identifies whether failures are due to errors in the agent's model or policy, or due to unsolvable task conditions.<n>Our evaluation shows that AIProbe significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques in detecting both total and unique errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-05T02:50:41Z)
• OS-Harm: A Benchmark for Measuring Safety of Computer Use Agents [60.78202583483591]
  We introduce OS-Harm, a new benchmark for measuring safety of computer use agents.<n> OS-Harm is built on top of the OSWorld environment and aims to test models across three categories of harm: deliberate user misuse, prompt injection attacks, and model misbehavior.<n>We evaluate computer use agents based on a range of frontier models and provide insights into their safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T17:59:31Z)
• Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
  Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
• Dissecting Adversarial Robustness of Multimodal LM Agents [70.2077308846307]
  We manually create 200 targeted adversarial tasks and evaluation scripts in a realistic threat model on top of VisualWebArena.<n>We find that we can successfully break latest agents that use black-box frontier LMs, including those that perform reflection and tree search.<n>We also use ARE to rigorously evaluate how the robustness changes as new components are added.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T17:32:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.